[License-review] New license submission

[Carlo Piana]

On 10/05/2013 00:11, Chris Jones wrote:
> I have asked several times for a simple step-by-step process of what we
> need to provide/do/change to get our license submission reviewed, but
> instead we received infamatory emails and responses on the mailing list
> which provided none of the information that we asked for. It's very
> disappointing for the Open Source Initiative. And it is great to see at
> least one person was brave enough to point this out and expose the
> internal issues from within the Open Source Initiative.
>
> Thank you to Luis for clearing things up and ammending the website. I
> have looked at the changes that you have made, yet. But changes were
> absolutely necessary as the information provided on the website
> regarding license submission requirements etc. was very misleading.

Chris,

I am by no means part of the OSI. But please don't get mislead by the
various issues that were raised on the *formalities* of the license that
you proposed. They are minor issues and could have not be a big problem
to overcome, had the license itself been in good order.

The major point is that your license does not meet the requirements of
the OSI definition, because prohibiting commercial exploitation through
selling of code is an undue limitation on the use of code. You cannot
slot a square pin on a round hole.

For that matter, if I had to put my hat as General Counsel of the Free
Software Foundation Europe on, your license is in my humble opinion not
Free Software too, although I cannot speak authoritatively on the subject.

That limitation seems to be the only rationale to push an ultraliberal
license that has the same very poor legal wording that MIT has and -- as
Bruce has pointed out -- could have a lot of problems being enforced in
Court. IMHO it  only creates more background noise in licensing without
providing any advantages, never mind not being compliant with the OSD.

With best regards

Carlo Piana